no absolute velocities, just an infinite number of relative velocities - or better stated, an infinite number of inertial frames that are in relative motion and all equivalent.

I don't know what you mean. I said every relative velocity can be made up of an infinite number of "absolute" velocities. The term absolute is wrong because there is no such thing, no aether, no CMB reference. However, the Earth, the LHC, the CMB and the "aether" or unicorns can all be used as intermediate reference frames to determine what share of the relative velocity each participant has. For example, if two ships are equidistant from earth and their relative velocity is .8c and they travel the same distance in the same time then their share is 50% of their relative velocity which works out to .5c each. This is how everyone seems to interpret "absolute velocity; as velocities relative to some "stationary" reference frame.

I clearly say all this is irrelevant. When you draw an STD with Bob at 0 velocity and Alice at .8c velocity, these are not relative velocities, they are "absolute" to a hidden stationary reference frame of Earth. That is painfully clear when Bob can take off from it and leave this implied stationary reference behind. I reject all that.

Bob's relative velocity is .8c and Alice's relative velocity is .8c Their network clocks are the basis for their own present. How they time events relative to their clock network is a separate reality. That's how relativity of simultaneity comes about. Two observers in relative motion will see the same events happen at different times according to their clock networks.

But what if Alice doesn't have a clock network following her. What if there's only an Earth clock network? Why would you care that if there was an Alice clock network that clocks reciprocal times to the Earth clock network eg according to the Earth clocks Bob is 5 and Alice is 3 and according to the Alice clocks Bob is 3 and Alice is 5? You don't care because they are different clock networks. All you have is the Earth clocks to measure the Earth based reality.

Every time Alice is passing near an Earth clock, a real measurement is being made. The time between approach and departure is 0 relative velocity and clocks can be compared; a real age difference has occurred in the Earth clock based reality. Yes, this is my latest departure from relativistic doctrine; I was dead set against this idea until now.

Alice just passes by the planet 4 ly away. According to relativity, no age difference has occurred because you don't know if Alice is passing the planet or the planet is passing the stationary Alice. But there is only relative motion. Each participant is experiencing his own reciprocal reality of time that are not mutually exclusive. They do not cancel each other out.

If Bob took off from Earth at .8c the precise moment Alice passed the planet (and you CAN determine that moment by applying relativity in post processing), would the reality suddenly switch to Bob being 3 and Alice being 5? I hope Relativity doesn't absolve itself from being able to make that call. It should yield the same result for Bob as it does for Alice stopping on the planet. Bob is essentially jumping into a 0 relative velocity frame with Alice the moment he takes off from Earth at .8c. Relativity seems to imply he is the one who broke the spell of constant relative motion being able to mask age difference. If Alice jumped into the 0 frame, she validates the Earth's clock network measurements relative to her on-board clock. If Bob does the jump then he validates Alice's clock network measurements so would he be suddenly 3 and Alice 5?

I'm saying I can make that call on the spot once I draw up the STD. I'm 99% sure that the STD will show that NO, reality doesn't suddenly swap and Bob is immediately 2 yrs younger than Alice. I'm saying once BoB takes off and Alice keeps going, he will see his view of Alice's relative velocity go to 0 while Alice will still see him going at .8c until the lTV signal from Bob reaches her and she sees the picture going at normal speed indicating that they are both at 0 relative velocity. For the time that Alice sees Bob still moving at .8c RELATIVE velocity, Bob continues aging slower than her as she had also been aging slower than him. Since Bob no longer sees Alice moving at .8c relative velocity, he must deduce she is no longer aging slower than him. So all during the time his TV signal has been propagating to her, Bob will be aging slower for longer and he will eventually end up aging 2 years less than Alice once his signal reaches her.

When Alice crosses the planet, she is already 3 and Bob is already 5 according to the earth clock network. So Bob takes off when he is 5. As Alice approaches 5, I can't see his age somehow regressing to 3. I'm pretty sure the result will NOT be that she is 5 and he is 3 but until I do the analysis I can't be 100% sure that my results will agree with what relativity says.

Of course, you're going to pull some sort of ace from your sleeve again and come up with a whole list of rules that allows relativity to come to the correct answer in the end. I hope so but it doesn't really matter because the simplest interpretation wins, not the one that's been around the longest. And you're going to counter that relativity is simpler so goodbye Ralf.

Anyways this is my wrap up of what I hope to prove in the next few months by providing proofs through STD examples of how this all works. I feel I've gone back to the purity of meaning of relativity being based on true relative motion. I'm sure you will not understand my last statement because I'm positive that you feel relativity has never deviated from the true concept of relative motion and that introducing stationary and moving frames was merely for mathematical convenience.